Subject: [Sipping] Should draft-ietf-sipping-multiple-refer-05.txt use "capacity" attribute?

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 16:14:44 -0500

It's been pointed out to me by some astute readers from the OMA POC  
team that the current multiple-refer draft doesn't currently use the  
extended uri-list syntax of  draft-ietf-sipping-capacity- 
attribute-00.txt, and probably should.

I believe we've updated the other uri-list docs to use the "capacity"  
attribute, and need to do the same for multiple-refer.

What does the WG think?

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:28:46 +0300

Hi:

I agree it makes sense to use the 'capacity' attribute in a URI-list 
inside a REFER. Note that you can it today in that way, without further 
specification, but I agree that it is nicer if we provide a discussion 
about the topic in the REFER draft.

I have two questions that I would like to further discuss:

a) In the URI-list conferencing (multiple INVITE) we mandate the support 
for the capacity attribute (otherwise, the URI-list server could ignore 
it and do nothing on 'bcc' and 'anonymize' attributes. I think, for the 
same reason, we should mandate the 'capacity' attribute in a 
multiple-refer URI-list server.

b) Since REFER is a generic method to invoke another method, it may 
happen that the capacity attribute does not always make sense. Take a 
look at the example in the multiple-refer draft, where a REFER triggers 
three BYE requests. While nothing breaks if we have 'capacity' on that 
list, it does not make much sense. The question is: do we need to 
provide a discussion about when 'capacity' makes sense and when it does not?

BR,

         Miguel

Dean Willis wrote:
> 
> It's been pointed out to me by some astute readers from the OMA POC team 
> that the current multiple-refer draft doesn't currently use the extended 
> uri-list syntax of  draft-ietf-sipping-capacity-attribute-00.txt, and 
> probably should.
> 

-- 
Miguel A. Garcia           tel:+358-50-4804586
sip:[email-masked]
Nokia Research Center      Helsinki, Finland

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 10:16:29 -0500

On Jun 6, 2006, at 1:28 AM, Miguel Garcia wrote:
>
> Dean Willis wrote:
>> It's been pointed out to me by some astute readers from the OMA  
>> POC team that the current multiple-refer draft doesn't currently  
>> use the extended uri-list syntax of  draft-ietf-sipping-capacity- 
>> I believe we've updated the other uri-list docs to use the  
>> "capacity" attribute, and need to do the same for multiple-refer.
>> What does the WG think
>
> a) In the URI-list conferencing (multiple INVITE) we mandate the  
> support for the capacity attribute (otherwise, the URI-list server  
> could ignore it and do nothing on 'bcc' and 'anonymize' attributes.  
> I think, for the same reason, we should mandate the 'capacity'  
> attribute in a multiple-refer URI-list server.
>

That makes sense to me.

> happen that the capacity attribute does not always make sense. Take  
> a look at the example in the multiple-refer draft, where a REFER  
> triggers three BYE requests. While nothing breaks if we have  
> 'capacity' on that list, it does not make much sense. The question  
> is: do we need to provide a discussion about when 'capacity' makes  
> sense and when it does not?

Only a minimal discussion, I think -- the capacity document itself  
should handle most of the heavy lifting here.

--
Dean

---

From: Miguel Garcia <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:44:24 +0300

Just to let you know that I submitted a couple of days ago an updated 
version of this multiple REFER draft, with the following changes:

- The draft now uses the capacity attribute extension
- Synchronization with RFC 4488 (suppression of REFER implicit 
subscription).

Until the draft is available in the general repository, you can fetch a 
copy at:

http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-multiple-refer-06.txt
http://people.nokia.net/~miguel/drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-multiple-refer-06.html

/Miguel

Dean Willis wrote:
>>> extended uri-list syntax of  
>>> draft-ietf-sipping-capacity-attribute-00.txt, and probably should.
>> could ignore it and do nothing on 'bcc' and 'anonymize' attributes. I 
>> think, for the same reason, we should mandate the 'capacity' attribute 
>> in a multiple-refer URI-list server.
>>
> 
> That makes sense to me.
> 
>> look at the example in the multiple-refer draft, where a REFER 
>> 'capacity' on that list, it does not make much sense. The question is: 
>> do we need to provide a discussion about when 'capacity' makes sense 
>> and when it does not?
>